CIVL4280 2018 - Week 3 - Lecture - Numerical Modelling

CIVL4280 Advanced Rock Mechanics
Advanced Numerical Methods:

Synthetic Rock Mass Models
Matt Tsang
PhD Candidate, School of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Modeller, Itasca Consulting Group
CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Geotechnical Engineering Centre
Presentation Outline
1. Introduction
• What are numerical models?
• Example Brazilian indirect tension test simulation
• Why do we use numerical models?
2. Review of Fundamentals
• Risk
• Design criteria
• Rock failure criteria
• Empirical methods

2 Geotechnical Engineering Centre
3. Overview of Numerical Methods

• Limit Equilibrium
• Continuum (Finite Element Method, Finite Difference Method)
• Discontinuum (block-, particle, & lattice -based Distinct Element Method)
• Hybrid FEM-DEM
4. Synthetic Rock Mass Models

• Bonded Particle Models (BPMs)
• Discrete Fracture Networks (DFNs)
• Microproperty calibration
• Laboratory test simulations

5. Case Study: Coal Mine Highwall Failure

• Slope failure observations
• Assembly of slope-scale Synthetic Rock Mass model
• Simulated UCS test on a Synthetic Rock Mass sample

1. Introduction 2. Fundamentals 3. Numerical Methods 4. Synthetic Rock Mass 5. Case Study
What are Numerical Models?

• Numerical models are computer programs that mathematically
transform material properties and applied stresses into predictions of
rock failure for complex scenarios in which simple closed-form
analytical solutions may not exist.
• Various levels of model complexity support the design process at all

stages from pre-feasibility through to execution.
• Numerical models are only a tool and they:
– Do not necessarily override the judgement of an experienced practitioner.
– Are best used in a complementary manner with other methods such as empirical
classification systems and historical databases.
– Should be updated whenever new information supersedes previous models.

What are Numerical Models?

• Just one component of the geotechnical engineering discipline.
+ Distinct Elements
Professionals and skills involved in geotechnical engineering, from Morgenstern (2000)

Numerical Model Example

• Example of a Brazilian indirect tension test represented by a Bonded
Particle Model.
Video Link:
Brazilian Test

Why use Numerical Models?

• Empirical & analytical methods cannot capture all unique variables for
each case.
• Numerical models allow us to test the sensitivity of system outputs to

changes in the system inputs.
• Assists quantification of risk for design and legislative purposes.
Example Outputs
Example Inputs
• Factor of Safety (e.g. design
• Excavation method
criterion FOS ≥ 1.2)
• Design life
• Probability of Failure (e.g.
• Material strength & Numerical design criterion POF ≤ 10%)
deformability Model • Potential failure runout
• Applied stress
distance
• Temperature
• Potential displacement rate
• Groundwater
for monitoring devices

Safety Risk: Slope Stability

• Predict expected displacements & velocities for monitoring.
Multiple equipment buried

due to underestimation of
failure runout distance
(thankfully no people hurt!)
Bingham Canyon slope failure,

from Salt Lake Tribune (2013)

Economic Risk: Ore Recovery

• Optimise design for ore recovery.
Potential impacts of slope steepening, from Read and Stacey (2009)

Design Criteria
1. Factor of Safety (FOS)
• Simple measure of load capacity vs. expected load.
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
• 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 =
𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
• Mine slopes typically designed to FOS between 1.1 and 1.3.

• Civil slopes typically designed to FOS > 1.5.
2. Probability of Failure (POF) POF
• Preferred by management for risk quantification.

• 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 𝐿𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑖ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 × 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑖ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 × 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
• Acceptable POF varies by industry, application, and operator.
• Acceptable POF for an inter-ramp mine slope may be ~10% vs. ~1% for the
overall mine slope or 0.0001% for a civil slope.

Rock Failure Criteria
• Mathematically describe
constitutive behaviour (how rock
responds to load).
• Two most common rock failure
criteria:
1. Linear Mohr-Coulomb:
𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝜎𝑛 tan φ
2. Non-linear Hoek-Brown:
𝑎
𝜎′3
𝜎′1 = 𝜎′3 + 𝜎𝑐𝑖 𝑚𝑏 +𝑠
𝜎𝑐𝑖
• Parameters determined from

standard laboratory tests.
Failure when τ or σ’1 > available strength

Rock Failure Criteria

• Hoek-Brown parameters can be converted to Mohr-Coulomb
parameters via Hoek et al. (2002) equations and vice versa.

Scale Effects
• Due to the presence of “invisible” micro-cracks, the block-scale intact
mechanical properties are lower than the laboratory-scale properties.
• This concept also applies to the jointed rock mass.
Increasing likelihood of
intercepting micro-cracks
Reducing strength & stiffness
Intact rock scale effect law, Conceptual representation of rock mass scale effects,
from Hoek and Brown (1980) from Wyllie & Mah (2004)

Empirical Methods
1. Forward analysis: empirical classification systems
• Determine mechanical properties from laboratory tests.
• Select index (i.e. GSI) that best represents joint conditions.
• Plug in to empirical equations to determine strength & deformability parameters.
2. Back-analysis: analysis of failed cases
• Assume failure surface based on observations, e.g. tension cracks behind crest.
• Determine equivalent Mohr-Coulomb cohesion and friction angle to reproduce

FOS = 1 (FOS ≤ 1 means failure).
• More advanced methods such as Shear Strength Reduction (Hammah et al.,

2005) can be used to fit equivalent Hoek-Brown or other parameters.

Empirical Classification Systems
• Commonly used empirical classification systems include:
– Quantified Geological Strength Index (GSI; 2013 version)
– Qualitative GSI (pre-2013)
– Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
– Q
• Many others, but all are limited to either:
– Isotropic / homogeneous conditions; or
– Simple anisotropic / heterogeneous conditions.

Empirical Classification Systems
Surface conditions
(effective discontinuity
surface strength)
Blockiness / degree of
interlocking
Note: no account for anisotropy,

heterogeneity, joint persistence,
slope orientation, or problem scale!
Quantified GSI chart, from Hoek et al. (2013)

General Rules for Numerical Modelling

1. Model complexity should be proportional to input data availability, i.e.
there is no sense in running a complex model if your confidence in
the model inputs is low (Starfield and Cundall, 1988).
Most mining projects operate here
Spectrum of modelling scenarios, from Itasca Consulting Group (2018)


2. Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) philosophy: the quality of the
model output can be no greater than the quality of the model input.
𝑶𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 ≤ 𝑰𝒏𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚
Therefore, focus on better quantifying the inputs before worrying

about including all the bells & whistles in the modelling process.


3. Always attempt to understand the sensitivity of the model outputs to
the inputs, e.g. if tensile strength is found to be the key control on
model behaviour, allocate more laboratory testing budget towards
tensile tests to improve model confidence.


4. Never rely on a model alone for design purposes: always cross-
check with at least one other method, e.g. an empirical classification
system such as GSI or Q to estimate likely operating bounds.

Summary of Numerical Methods

Example
Type Method Advantages Disadvantages
Software
• Slide
• Easy to learn
Limit Equilibrium • Galena • No consideration of strain
• Fast / large-scale
• Swedge
Continuum
Finite Element
(Implicit • RS2 / RS3 • Fast / large-scale
Method (FEM)
discontinuities) • Prescribed macro-behaviour
• Fast / large-scale • Cannot break mesh / zones
Finite Difference • FLAC /
• No partial differential
Method (FDM) FLAC3D
equations.
• Explicit macro-fractures
• UDEC /
(large, e.g. faults)
3DEC • Prescribed macro-behaviour
• Independent blocks may
(blocks)
disconnect
• Progressive failure &
Discontinuum Discrete / emergent macro- behaviour
• PFC2D / • Difficult to learn
(Explicit Distinct Element • Explicit micro-fractures
PFC3D • Slow / small-scale
discontinuities) Method (DEM) (small, e.g. joints, cleats)
(particles) • Laborious calibration process
• Independent particles may
disconnect
• Faster, simplified version of • Limited to tensile-dominated
• Slope Model
particle-based DEM (no failure mechanisms
(lattice)
moments considered) • Few case studies available
Coupled FEM- • ELFEN
• Relatively new technology
Hybrid DEM or FDM- • Coupled • Best of both worlds
• Few case studies available
DEM FLAC-PFC

Limit Equilibrium Example

• Example of a slope stability analysis using Method of Slices in Slide.
• Simple comparison of material strength (resisting force) to material
weight (driving force) along assumed failure surface.
• No consideration of strain.
Failure surface must be assumed
FOS

FEM Example
• Example of a slope stability analysis in RS2.
• Continuous, unbreakable, discretized mesh.
• Stress-strain calculations occur at nodes & require partial differential
equations to be solved.
• Less efficient than FDM but better
handling of complex geometry.

FDM Example
• Example of a slope stability analysis in FLAC3D.
• Mesh consists of zones instead of nodes.
• Stress-strain calculations take place within zones & no partial
differential equations required.

Block-based DEM Example

• Example 3DEC model.
Faults & joints represented explicitly Blocks can detach, translate & rotate

Particle-based DEM Example

• Example PFC2D model.
Explicit fracturing of intact rock

Unique Applications of Particle-based DEM
• Coffee beans in a grinder.
Video Link:
Coffee Grinder

• SJET biomolecular magnetic self-assembly.
Video Link:
Self-assembly
Video Link:
BPM

• Rock slide down a mountain.
Video Link:
Rock Slide

Lattice-based DEM Example
Node-spring lattice assembly and its application to the simulation of a toppling

failure mechanism in a laboratory-scale slope model, from Cundall (2011)

Hybrid Methods
• Coupled FLAC-PFC2D model for an underground excavation.
Far-field excavation represented
by FDM mesh (fast)
Near-field excavation
represented by BPM (slow)
Video Link:
Coupled Model

Synthetic Rock Mass Models

• The Synthetic Rock Mass (SRM) method involves superimposing a
Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) onto a DEM model to represent the
complete rock mass as true to reality as possible.
• Explicit representation of all components of a rock mass, including:
– Individual rock grains
– Cement and interlocking between rock grains
– Non-persistent discontinuities
– Sliding and opening of discontinuities
• SRM models sacrifice computing efficiency in favour of precise

representation of microscopic fracture mechanisms.

Synthetic Rock Mass Model Components
Bonded Particle Superimpose DFN Synthetic Rock

Model + SJM Mass Model
Synthetic Rock Mass model components, modified from Mas Ivars et al. (2011)

Bonded Particle Models

• Base material representing intact rock.
• Particles initially bonded together but can translate & rotate after
bonds break.
General Bonded Particle Model constitutive behaviour, from Cho et al. (2007)

Particle Kinematics
• Particle motion calculated according to Newton’s Laws of Motion.
• Resultant force proportional to magnitude of particle overlap.
From Cundall and Strack (1979)

Compression-Induced Tensile Failure
• Under low confinement, e.g. at an excavation face, brittle rock tends to

fail in tension – even under compressive loading.
• This is primarily due to the high ratio of cohesion (shear resistance) to

tensile strength (tension resistance) between grains and lack of
external restraining forces (confinement).
From Potyondy and Cundall (2004)

Force Chains
• Force chains assist us to visualise how

applied boundary forces are transmitted
through the particle assembly, where:
– Line orientation denotes force direction.
– Line thickness denotes force magnitude.
• In the example:
– Compression force chains are black.
– Tension force chains are green.

Laboratory Test Simulations: Compression
Unconfined 2.5 MPa Confinement

Radial suppression of
tensile splitting induces
additional shear cracks
Higher peak
stress & strain
Spalling
phenomenon
Axial splitting
Ductile post-
peak behaviour
Brittle post-peak
behaviour
Video Link: Video Link:

UCS Test Triaxial Test

Laboratory Test Simulations: Tension
Tensile failure aligned to

Effectively point loading Two rows of particles used as Tensile failure orthogonal to
major principal stress direction
grips instead of test platens major principal stress direction
(N)
Note different axes

Video Link:
Direct Tension Test

Microproperty Calibration
Iteratively change microproperties and
simulate relevant laboratory tests until
target macroproperties are reproduced.

Discrete Fracture Networks
• Statistical representation of joint spatial properties.

• Derived from face mapping and borehole fracture data.
Generation of a Discrete Fracture Network from joint statistical data, from Hadjigeorgiou et al. (2009)

Discontinuity Surface Strength
• In early versions of the SRM method, discontinuity surface strength

was represented by de-bonding particles near each fracture.
• This resulted in an excessively high friction angle due to the inherent
“bumpiness” that required particles to ride up over each other.
• The Smooth Joint contact model solves this problem by allowing
particles to pass through each other along the joint plane.
Conceptual representation of the Smooth Joint contact model,

from Bahaaddini et al. (2016)

Synthetic Rock Mass Model Applications

• SRM models are most commonly used to simulate standard
laboratory tests at the rock mass scale to derive equivalent Hoek-
Brown or Mohr-Coulomb parameters for use in excavation-scale
stability analysis in other codes (i.e. LE, FEM, FDM).
• This allows the user to bypass empirical methods such as GSI and
directly estimate the rock mass strength.
• By prescribing constitutive properties at the micro-scale, the

macroscopic failure mechanisms are emergent.
• The case study in the remaining slides demonstrates the application

of simple two-dimensional SRM models to match the back-analysed
shear strength properties for a coal mine slope failure case from the
Bowen Basin in Queensland.

Case Study: Coal Mine Slope Failure

Slope-Scale SRM Model: Assembly

• Small-scale periodic brick (“pbrick”) assembled to match target
isotropic mean stress.
• Loose coordination number (average number of contacts per particle)
and porosity monitored during calibration process.
Video Link:
pbrick equilibration

Slope-Scale SRM Model: Assembly

• Small-scale pbricks assembled to create large-scale Bonded Particle
Model base material.

Slope-Scale SRM Model: Material Assignment
• Calibrated microproperties assigned to particles by rock mass unit.
Manifold DXFs imported from CAD software

(e.g. AutoCAD or Rhinoceros) to act as rock
mass unit boundaries for material assignment.

Slope-Scale SRM Model: Joint Insertion
• Due to limited joint data, a simple deterministic DFN approach was

adopted (simple data → simple model).
• Joints inserted only in sandstone units; siltstones and interbedded
units treated as massive with additional downgrading factor applied.
Algorithm traces along rock

mass unit boundaries, inserting
bedding planes and joints.

Slope-Scale SRM Model: Sampling
Sampled region

Slope-Scale SRM Model: Testing

• UCS test on the calibrated Synthetic Rock Mass model.
Observe distribution of
tension cracks (red) and
shear cracks (blue)
192 m
~18x less strength than

lab-scale intact UCS
Very large pre-peak

softening phase
Video Link:
SRM Test

References
• Bahaaddini, M., Hagan, P., Mitra, R., Hebblewhite, B. K. (2016). Numerical Study on the Mechanical Behavior of Nonpersistent Jointed Rock Masses, Int. J.
Geomech. 16(1): 04015035.
• Cho, N., Martin, C. D., Sego, D. C. (2007). A Clumped Particle Model for Rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44:997-1010.
• Cundall, P. A., Strack, O. D. L. (1979). A Discrete Numerical Model for Granular Assemblies. Géotechnique 29(1): 47-65.
• Cundall, P. A. (2011). Lattice Method for Modeling Brittle, Jointed rock. Proc. Continuum and Distinct Element Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics,
Minneapolis, 2011, Sainsbury, Hart, Detournay & Nelson (eds.).
• Hadjigeorgiou, J., Esmaieli, K., Grenon, M. (2009). Stability Analysis of Vertical Excavations in Hard Rock by Integrating a Fracture System into a PFC
Model. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24:296-308.
• Hammah, R., Yacoub, T. E., Corkum, B. C., Curran, J. H. (2005). The Shear Strength Reduction Method for the Generalized Hoek-Brown Criterion. Proc.
40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure Development in the Northern Regions, held in
Anchorage, Alaska, June 25-29, 2005.
• Hoek, E., Brown, E. T. (1997). Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34(8):1165-1186.
• Hoek, E., Carter, T., Diederichs, M. S. (2013). Quantification of the Geological Strength Index Chart. Proc. 47th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics
Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, June 23-26, 2013.
• Itasca Consulting Group (2018). Particle Flow Code 5.0 Help Documentation.
• Mas Ivars, D., Pierce, M. E., Darcel, C., Reyes-Montes, J., Potyondy, D. O., Young, R. P., Cundall, P. A. (2011). The Synthetic Rock Mass Approach for
Jointed Rock Mass Modelling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48:219-244.
• Morgenstern, N. R. (2000). Common ground (pp. 1–30). Proc. International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne.
Technomic Publishing.
• Potyondy, D. O., Cundall, P. A. (2004). A Bonded-Particle Model for Rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41:1329-1364.
• Salt Lake Tribune (2013). Mine Landslide Triggered Quakes, Retrieved from https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/mine-landslide-triggered-
quakes/ [Accessed 7th August 2018].
• Starfield, A. M., Cundall, P. A. (1988). Towards a Methodology for Rock Mechanics Modelling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 25(3): 99-106.
• Read, J. R. L., Stacey, P. (2009). Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.
• Wyllie, D. C., Mah, C. W. (2004). Rock Slope Engineering. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

Contact Details
m.tsang@uq.edu.au
Advanced Engineering Building (No. 49)
Level 4, Room 421, Desk 28

Geotechnical Engineering Centre

CIVL4280 2018 - Week 3 - Lecture - Numerical Modelling

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CIVL4280 2018 - Week 3 - Lecture - Numerical Modelling

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CIVL4280 Advanced Rock Mechanics

Advanced Numerical Methods:

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

• Example Brazilian indirect tension test simulation

• Why do we use numerical models?

• Rock failure criteria

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

3. Overview of Numerical Methods

• Continuum (Finite Element Method, Finite Difference Method)

• Discontinuum (block-, particle, & lattice -based Distinct Element Method)

4. Synthetic Rock Mass Models

• Discrete Fracture Networks (DFNs)

• Laboratory test simulations

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

5. Case Study: Coal Mine Highwall Failure

• Assembly of slope-scale Synthetic Rock Mass model

• Simulated UCS test on a Synthetic Rock Mass sample

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

What are Numerical Models?

• Various levels of model complexity support the design process at all

• Numerical models are only a tool and they:

– Do not necessarily override the judgement of an experienced practitioner.

– Should be updated whenever new information supersedes previous models.

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

What are Numerical Models?

Professionals and skills involved in geotechnical engineering, from Morgenstern (2000)

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Numerical Model Example

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Why use Numerical Models?

• Numerical models allow us to test the sensitivity of system outputs to

• Assists quantification of risk for design and legislative purposes.

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Safety Risk: Slope Stability

Multiple equipment buried

Bingham Canyon slope failure,

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Economic Risk: Ore Recovery

Potential impacts of slope steepening, from Read and Stacey (2009)

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

• Mine slopes typically designed to FOS between 1.1 and 1.3.

2. Probability of Failure (POF) POF

• Preferred by management for risk quantification.

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Rock Failure Criteria

• Parameters determined from

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Rock Failure Criteria

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Reducing strength & stiffness

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

• Determine mechanical properties from laboratory tests.

• Select index (i.e. GSI) that best represents joint conditions.

• Plug in to empirical equations to determine strength & deformability parameters.

2. Back-analysis: analysis of failed cases

• Determine equivalent Mohr-Coulomb cohesion and friction angle to reproduce

• More advanced methods such as Shear Strength Reduction (Hammah et al.,

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Empirical Classification Systems

• Commonly used empirical classification systems include:

– Quantified Geological Strength Index (GSI; 2013 version)

– Qualitative GSI (pre-2013)

– Rock Mass Rating (RMR)